Turn/timeline changes

It's the same for me. I may be able to bear it, but the only mod I've seen match that is Caveman2Cosmos.

Click to expand...

Well, AFAIK DoC has even longer wait times between turns in the lategame.
SoI is in a great position in this regard - while the map size is more or less the same as in RFCE, it has much less room for cities and units, thus significantly faster in the lategame.

Heh, you are going to need viewports if you keep going in this direction. Lots of people don't have up-to-date computers.

Click to expand...

Keep going? The mod didn't get any slower (at least not significantly) in neither version 1.4 nor 1.5.
The last bigger drop in performance was in 1.3, when 6 new civs were added, as adding those also resulted in a much higher map density.

Also, wasn't it clear already that I try to be as careful with bigger additions as possible?
Just check back how this conversations started: you suggested to increase turn number to a much greater extent, and I said I don't think we should have more than 600.
The point is, while I'm far from being a pro in this regard, I always try take performance questions into consideration too.

Uhh... It's around 10-15 seconds to me. While I still consider that much, it's more than bearable I guess.
What do you do while you wait for the AI turn? How much is it for you in the midgame?

Click to expand...

Well: its pretty ok in the beginning like 2-3 sec / turns
in the 13rd century its start to get slower, like 6-10 sec / turns
by 1400-1450 it goes up till 30-60 sec / turns
next break is in ~1600 then 2-5 min / turns
at ~1700 it is 5++ mins
and in 1760+ its get a bit more slower

Well, I used to think in the meantime. If i have a war its ok, i have time to sharpen my strategy and imagine what will be my next move, where to strengthen my presence ect.
In peace time its boring and usually i go dreaming on my future plans with that civ. or wait for uhv like with sweden or england (that's painful).

If you accept an advice? If a civ gains full sight of the map. (no fog of war) Then they should shut down ALL scouting units, guide them in city/harbour. that would speed up lategame a lot. Also military tactical movements take a lot. AI moves their units non-stop. Player move them by stacks. Try to teach AI.
Respawning civs makes my turns double longer to w8.
IMO not the number of cities, but the number of units moved UNNECESSARILY. makes it goddamn slow. And some MAF too.

If you accept an advice? If a civ gains full sight of the map. (no fog of war) Then they should shut down ALL scouting units, guide them in city/harbour. that would speed up lategame a lot. Also military tactical movements take a lot. AI moves their units non-stop. Player move them by stacks. Try to teach AI.

Click to expand...

AI coding is way more complex than that.
I can't just adjust it the way I would like to, there are a lot of interdependent things.
Also, what and where to code for the desired effect is usually not straightforward at all.
I tried to improve a couple smaller aspects every now and then (and will continue to do so), but rewriting some of the very basic AI behaviours like when and where to handle various unit movements with stacks or independently (and especially all the stuff which is based on unit movement) is a very hard task even for full gaming companies.
Just check the AI in Civ V or VI...

If there are more turns added to the game, should the tech tree get a major overhaul? It might be needed to fill the additional turns and could potentially solve some of the scaling issues. Especially after 1600, where the tree just feels empty. Has there been an active discussion of this topic?

I'm in your empire, building my own. Ottomans in RFC EuropeThe full Version is up! Download it here.

If there are more turns added to the game, should the tech tree get a major overhaul? It might be needed to fill the additional turns and could potentially solve some of the scaling issues. Especially after 1600, where the tree just feels empty. Has there been an active discussion of this topic?

Click to expand...

Would love to see a conversation about potential tech updates/changes/addons.

It had been brought up a couple times now, and I always agreed:
Turn progession does seem too quick in the first half of the mod.

I have been toying with the idea of adding a couple more turns for a while.
Now with the upcoming Arab revisions we have another reason, so I think I have decided to do in the next version of the mod.

On the other hand I most certainly don't want to go overboard with this.
While it would be great to have almost each year represented, the mod is already slow enough towards the endgame. Can't put too much burden on good ol' Civ IV, especially since we want to have new civs too.
Instead of the current 500 turns I'm thinking somewhere around 600. Maybe 650.

Currently:
4 years per turn from 500 to 900, 100 turns
3 years per turn from 900 to 1500. 200 turns
2 years per turn from 1500 to 1700, 100 turns
1 year per turn from 1700 to 1800, 100 turns

As a very first proposal:
(just to see the general direction where I imagine the extended turns)
3 years per turn from 500 to 1100. 200 turns
2 years per turn from 1100 to 1700, 300 turns
1 year per turn from 1700 to 1800, 100 turns

As it is probably clear, IMO the most critical places are the 3 years/turn after the 11th century (with the Crusades and all the new civs), and the 4 years/turn after the Arab spawn.

Click to expand...

Thinking this over, I really like the addition of 100 turns to the mod. And it's going to the early years. That's a 20% increase in the total game.

Breaking it down, we would be getting an extra ~34 turns between the years 500-900 (roughly the Early Middle Ages) which is an increase of 33%. Also, between 900-1500 (The High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages) we would be getting an extra ~66 turns which is also a 33% increase of gameplay for that era. All of the extra focus is going evenly towards the three stages of the Middles Ages, and that's very exciting to me.

With all this extra gameplay technologies would need to be adjusted some, but several new ones would need to be added. From the XML tech file, each technology is divided into four vanilla categories (ancient, classical, medieval, and renaissance). The first three will be impacted since they mostly represent the Middle Ages in order. Currently ancient (early) has 18 techs; classical (high) 18* and two Arabic techs; and 15 medieval (Late) techs.

Without adjusting tech costs too much, each of the three Medieval eras will "need" 5 or 6 techs to help even things out. Here are some, mostly early and high middle age techs... Some work better than others. They're just suggestions, but important developments during gathered time period that could be represented...

Scholasticism - religion for early Middle Ages.
Natural Law - religion for early Middle Ages.
Waterpower/Water milling - economy for early Middle Ages.
Crop Rotation - growth and began in 10th century.
Heavy Plow - economy and gradually began in Europe 6th century. In common use by end of 10th century?
Fortification - military for early Middle Ages.
Militia Levy - military for early Middle Ages.
Horse collar - economy. Began in 920.
Lamination Works - I remember someone else suggesting this for the composite archer unit. Would be military for early Middle Ages?
Mendicant Orders - religion began in high Middle Ages. Late 11th Century.
Treadmill crane - growth? Began in high Middle Ages.
Shaft Mining - economy for high Middle Ages. Most important mining industry.
Heraldry - culture. High Middle Ages.
Pole arms - military for high Middle Ages (guisarme could go here instead of aristocracy).
Stone masonry - culture? For high/late Middle Ages.
Oil Painting - culture late Middle Ages.
Patent Law - first used in Venice 1447.
Spinning Wheel - growth for high/late Middle Ages.

An issue will be making extra techs worth researching and not empty. Adding extra buildings might work in with more units too.

Adjustments that I think would need to be made to compensate for extra turns:
- Culture levels would likely need to be adjusted a little to compensate for the extra turns, mostly because early civs will be alive producing culture for an extra 100 turns. Advancing from the 2nd culture level (the big fat cross) to the 3rd should be increased. Maybe advancing to the 2nd level could be increased as well?
- Splitting France into Francia and the Kingdom of France is very appealing to me, but not completely necessary. Having a civ go the entire length of the game without becoming overpowered sounds difficult. It also makes waiting to complete a historical victory boring. Old idea. There are probably simpler solutions though to balancing a 600 turn France.

Spoiler:

If Franks and French are split... Francia and Kingdom of France.
Franks spawn at Aachen in 500, or anywhere between France and Germany I guess. Paris would start as Lutetia, and flips to them?
UU Throwing Axeman: (replaces axeman) Same strength as regular axeman but starts with collateral I like a catapult would have, and can promote to collateral II and III etc.
UB Chapter School (replaces library. +1 or +2 great saint points, requires Catholicism)
UP Cities do not revolt on conquest.
Or religious buildings produce extra happiness
Or religious buildings produce one great prophet point
Franks UHVs
1. Same as current first French UHV
2. Have friendly relations with the Byzantines by 800
3. Build 8 chapter schools by 820
4. Have a X amount of faith points by 750
5. Control every French and German province in 1055
6. Settle 4 great saints within your empire
7. Build 10 monasteries by 825
8. Control more territory than the Byzantine empire?

Replace French 1st UHV - Spawn in 840's for treaty of Verdun. Capital stays at Paris, and flips cities westward along the Loire river.
1. Have 10,000 culture by 1500
2.. Make Paris the largest and most cultured city in 1300
3. Ensure that all of your cities have a castle, chateau, and reliquary*
4. Build the first university in Europe.
5. Control four cities within "foreign core" territory.

Franks shouldn't spawn in Aachen IMO if they're introduced, it was only really important around Charlemagne's time. For most the period the main power centres were Paris (obviously) for Neustria and Metz for Austrasia; honestly spawning at Paris still makes the most sense, considering a 500 AD start.

That's a fair point. Years ago I was looking at Aachen simply because it was in the middle of France and Germany. There's plenty of other problems I guess with working out having the Franks anyway, especially with the French spawning on too of the, the same time Germany and Burgundy would.

I like most of the tech ideas I came up with because of a book I am reading on medieval machines (it focuses on labor economics). But they're very much guesses too since it would require plenty of planning to work in with the current tech tree.

I honestly don't see the point of just making the game longer. Which civ would possibly benefit from that. You have more than enough time for most UHVs already.
In RFC:Europe you have to manage so many cities each turn. Adding more turns would make the game more tedious in my opinion.
Adding more techs to the game on the other hand would add content to the game so I'm all for this.

I honestly don't see the point of just making the game longer. Which civ would possibly benefit from that. You have more than enough time for most UHVs already.
In RFC:Europe you have to manage so many cities each turn. Adding more turns would make the game more tedious in my opinion.
Adding more techs to the game on the other hand would add content to the game so I'm all for this.

Click to expand...

I agree for the mid-game and the late-game.
But the early game could certainly use some more turns.
Byzantium, France, Arabia and Bulgaria would benefit from it greatly.
Cordoba, Venice and the Viking UHVs for Denmark and Norway could also use the extra turns.

On the other hand, I'm now doubting that we really need 1 year/turn for the last 100 years.
Does that period really warrant the extra turns?
There are some cool stuff appearing there (units, techs, etc), sure. But I for example almost never play the game past 1650-1700 anyway.
Probably wouldn't be much of a difference if those extra stuff were there for less turns.
Might be even desired, as those turns tend to slow down. Both technically (lag) and gameplay wise (too many cities to manage).

I never make it to the last 100 years of the game either. There's a lot of lag, and before then I'm ready to play another civ. You could shorten it by half to 2 years per turn so it becomes 50 total turns.
Edit: if you really wanted to, you could cut out the last 100 turns. That would even out the proposed estra 100 for the Middle Ages. Not sure if you're willing to do that though (colonies, etc.)

On the other hand, I'm now doubting that we really need 1 year/turn for the last 100 years.
Does that period really warrant the extra turns?
There are some cool stuff appearing there (units, techs, etc), sure. But I for example almost never play the game past 1650-1700 anyway.

I support the longer early game, and yes, the last 100 years are usually "press end turn' till you reach the UHV. That ask me a question: why we dont change all uhv's that date after 1650 to by? instead of the fixed? purely for gameplay reasons!
Although, on the rare occasion if I extend my game beyond 1600++, there used to be some cool battles. True they are mostly unrealistic. like Sweden vs Turkey
Extra techs sounds good. Ofc with extra buildings and units or more unit tiers.

I agree for the mid-game and the late-game.
But the early game could certainly use some more turns.
Byzantium, France, Arabia and Bulgaria would benefit from it greatly.
Cordoba, Venice and the Viking UHVs for Denmark and Norway could also use the extra turns.

On the other hand, I'm now doubting that we really need 1 year/turn for the last 100 years.
Does that period really warrant the extra turns?
There are some cool stuff appearing there (units, techs, etc), sure. But I for example almost never play the game past 1650-1700 anyway.
Probably wouldn't be much of a difference if those extra stuff were there for less turns.
Might be even desired, as those turns tend to slow down. Both technically (lag) and gameplay wise (too many cities to manage).

Click to expand...

Agree with both of these.

You can make a richer France and Bulgarian experience rather than the first UHV being a mad dash for conquest with little margin for error, and then the Arabs and Byzantines can have a challenging and meaningful UHV (Abbasid Caliphate and Macedonian Restoration respectively).

The late game can also arguably be almost entirely excluded after 1700AD. as gilgames says it's largely just spinning turns until the UHV. Only Moscow and Prussia really have anything to actually do in the 1700s, England, Austria and the Dutch just spin turns and Sweden can achieve its 3rd UHV by 1700 easily. Moscow and Prussia can also achieve their UHVs early with aggression, so there's really little point having the additional late game focus.

Also removing 4 and 1 years/turn would help simplify the overall timeline.

3 years/turn from 500AD to 1100AD for 200 turns
2 years/turn from 1100AD to 1800AD for 350 turns

Extra turns and more time in the early period make for a better game imo.

Since extra turns would give more gameplay to the medieval era, these units I suggested way back when might be a little more plausible to add in (like the composite archer unit)
Units:

Spoiler:

Composite archer - I can't remember the details a out this one since someone else suggested it a while back, but it is an upgrade of the archer. I would imagine it as a "city defense" archer unit during the same time as the crossbow, so the crossbow will become a more versatile: offensive and defensive unit in the game.
Man-at-Arms (A) (Militia Levy) My original idea was for a cheap early unit. Maybe six strength with 10% city defense and 10% vs pole arm units. It could also require Catholic as state religion and running feudal civics... I think Swarbs pointed out it would be a fairly pointless unit to add to the current timeline (which is true) but with more turns in the early game, maybe this early cheap unit could work?
Man-at-Arms (B) - (Heraldry) This is more of the same but as a stronger High Middle Ages unit. Maybe 8-9 strength with the same bonus, or none at all.
Foot Knight (Chivalry/Civil Service/Plate Armor?) 10 strength with a possible +25% vs melee units. Cheaper than current knight.
Halberd (Civil Service/Plate Armor or Heraldry) 8-9 strength with bonus against pole arm and mounted units. 25-50%?

Three medieval siege engines at play (2 new ones to go with trebuchet) but I do not know if collateral and bombard damage can be adjusted this way. I don't know the best strength to give each either.
Mangonel (siege engines) upgrade from catapult. Has better collateral damage than trebuchet.
Capped Ram/Battering Ram (siege engines). Bombards better than trebuchet. Cannot attack.